By Malcolm Lee Kitchen III | Margin Of The Law

What follows is a shorted and re-written version of a 70 page document written by Omar Jordan several years ago. That document is attached below.

This document presents evidence combined with my own opinions, based on facts available in the public domain. I do not claim to present objective truth. I encourage you to follow the links throughout this piece and do your own research. Decide for yourself whether your conclusions match mine. Treat this as a starting point for further investigation, not a final verdict.

The Setup

For some of us, David E. Martin’s role in this operation was clear the moment he sat down with Mikki Willis for an interview. If you understand that the COVID-19 story is a psychological operation, then David’s bioweapon claims look like a red herring from the start. If you don’t yet see COVID-19 that way, a long list of books on virology and vaccines will get you there faster than this paper will.

If you see David E. Martin as a truth-seeker and a hero, a man you’ve likely never met, this paper isn’t for you either.

Some of you already understand psychological warfare but still want to believe David is on your side. I understand that instinct and pass no judgment on it. In the first layer of this operation, David looks like one of the good guys because he “exposes Dr. Fauci’s corruption.” But did you need him to tell you that? Fauci has lied since the HIV era in the 1980s, and most people still believe HIV causes AIDS despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. COVID-19 runs the same playbook. If you want the background, there’s a long list of books and documentaries on the subject, including several more titles worth your time.

David is doing some good in the world. I believe that’s only the surface. Underneath it, I see a larger agenda that leads back to the same institutions every time: the World Bank, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum.

David appears in Mikki Willis’s film Plandemic II, a textbook limited hangout. That alone should raise questions. The film’s goal was to trade one fear-based story (a virus that jumped from bat to human) for an even more frightening one (a lab-made bioweapon). In both versions, the virus is real, and that shared assumption is the actual lie. Both sides recruit the public as spectators, and the trick works as long as people keep choosing sides.

Mikki Willis felt suspicious to me from the start. If you want to test that instinct, watch him tell his story about being at “Ground Zero” on 9/11. You’re free to take that story at face value. If you’ve studied 9/11 in depth, you likely won’t. For more, watch this video and notice the emotional manipulation in the delivery, or this one, where Willis appears in the background of an earlier account of the same story. Ask yourself the odds of one person turning up at the center of two of the most consequential events of our lifetime.

Plandemic II gave audiences who already doubted the official story a new place to land: the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered. That belief split the audience into two camps arguing over the virus’s origin, bioweapon or bat, while neither side stopped to ask for evidence that the virus exists and causes illness at all. The film invoked Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s historical infiltration of media, to explain away censorship of the film itself. Few viewers asked whether Mockingbird-style influence might also explain the film’s own reach.

So let’s set conspiracy theories aside and read David’s own website instead.

David’s Bio, In His Own Words

From David’s website:

Dr. David Martin knows who he is. And he’s here to show others how to remember what it means to put humanity into the human experience. Over the past 5 decades he’s fully lived and has done so in service to humanity. Unlike many who build an identity around accomplishments, he uses his actions to show others the vast extremes of possibility.

The bio insists David doesn’t build his identity around his accomplishments, then lists an extensive set of them. Watch how often he references his own resume in interviews, then compare that to this line. This pattern, citing an impressive resume as evidence of credibility, is a known rhetorical tactic called appeal to authority. You don’t need my read on it. Judge it from his own website:

His first invention was a laser integrated system to target and treat inoperable tumors. His mathematics helped unravel the way the human body processes hormones and led to the detection and treatment of many diseases.

Was he an inventor or a mathematician? What did the mathematics actually do, and what was his specific role in bringing the technology to market?

His observation of human behavior led to his development of technology which deciphers the intention and motivation of communication – a technology that has impacted and saved the lives of billions.

What is this technology, when was it built, and with whom? How was “saved the lives of billions” measured, and which companies brought it to market? These are fair questions the bio doesn’t answer.

His global business activities served to develop the world’s top-performing global equity index (including the CNBC IQ100 powered by M·CAM).

David founded M-CAM in 1998 and remains its CEO and Chairman. From M-CAM’s About Us page:

WHERE CREATIVITY AND HUMANITY ARE VALUED THROUGH CELEBRATING AND ACKNOWLEDGING INGENUITY, CUSTOMS AND CULTURES FROM AROUND THE GLOBE, INNOVATION, AND HERITABLE KNOWLEDGE.

Along the way, we developed structured finance solutions which embrace innovation and obsolescence so that large scale infrastructure and civil society projects can use public funds more efficiently. Realizing that public expenditures are made across the globe, we’ve integrated sovereign technology credit obligations and trade credit offsets to form the most efficient and accountable investment products.

Along the way, we developed the only government-recognized and used (both for Congress and the U.S. Treasury) technology platform to audit patent and intangible asset quality and market enforceability… Along the way, we M·CAM’d ourselves and innovated a variety of products and services that allow businesses, schools, governments and individuals a means of using the Global Innovation Commons and our unstructured intent-based communications analysis systems to gain unprecedented visibility and actionable intelligence to insure that effective, legitimate innovation gets deployed to benefit all of us.

That language is straight from M-CAM’s own site. Read it closely and you’ll find themes of social engineering and financial restructuring dressed up as humanitarian language.

The bio continues:

He’s brought the world’s largest white-collar criminals to justice and brought the world’s most oppressed and disenfranchised transformative ways to engage. From the starry expanses of Mongolia to the flashing lights of New York, his work is as passion-filled whether it’s with a camel herder or a global CEO.

What brought David to Mongolia specifically? In 2010, he gave a speech at the European Banking Institute Think Tank Freedom Dinner. The EBI also published a Pandemic Crisis Related Economic and Financial Regulation Measures report worth reading. On June 4, 2010, David delivered a plenary address titled “Telling the Mongolia Story: An Economic Vision Beyond Resources” at Mongolia’s First International Forum on Business Incubation, where M-CAM was establishing a Heritable Innovation Trust program with the Mongolia Business Incubation Federation.

Mongolia holds large reserves of copper, coal, gold, silver, iron ore, and other minerals, and only about 30% of its territory has been explored for mining. I won’t speculate on a connection here, but I’ll return to it later.

He tells his own story in the critically acclaimed documentary Future Dreaming and breaks down economic injustice in Patent Wars. An author, public speaker, business visionary, professor, researcher, oracle, father, and friend, David is a man Fully Living.

The bio calls him an oracle. Google defines that word as “a priest or priestess acting as a medium through whom advice or prophecy was sought from the gods in classical antiquity.” That’s the term his own team chose.

All that was in the first 50 years, now that he is warmed up even greater things are coming! Equipped with his ‘Integral Accounting insights’ and his ‘Breathing Enterprise implementation’… together with Kim Martin… you too can step into the full essence of what it means to Fully Live!

One of his websites lists a four-day workshop for $2,750, lunch and snacks included. Read the page yourself and draw your own conclusions, starting with the line: “David and Kim’s (his wife) workshops are uniquely designed to give you the tools to navigate your purpose in the world without dependency on belief, programs or experts.” Except, apparently, these experts and their $2,750 program.

If you want to dig further, David wrote this paper in 2010. Skim it for the recurring theme of investing in foreign countries for “humanitarian” purposes.

Back to the bio:

Dr. David E. Martin is the Founder and Chairman of M·CAM Inc., the international leader in innovation finance, trade, and intangible asset finance. He is the developer of the first innovation-based quantitative index of public equities and is the Managing Partner of the Purple Bridge Funds.

He is the creator of the world’s first quantitative public equity index – the CNBC IQ100 powered by M·CAM.

The CNBC IQ100 tracks 100 large-cap companies, powered by David’s own company, and includes Amazon, Apple, Chevron, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Coca-Cola, ExxonMobil, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, MasterCard, and Visa. When those companies do well, David’s own index does well. Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson had strong pandemics.

Actively engaged in global ethical economic development, Dr. Martin’s work includes financial engineering and investment, public speaking, writing and providing financial advisory services to the majority of countries in the world.

“Ethical” is subjective. Advising on investment in Pfizer, JPMorgan, and MasterCard is only “ethical” if your definition of ethics matches theirs.

Dr. Martin is the architect and founder of the Global Innovation Commons… David E. Martin, an intellectual property activist who works with many developing countries, argues that a great many green technologies are already in the public domain and ready to be developed.

The Global Innovation Commons is a database of expired or abandoned patents for clean energy, water, and agriculture technology, built in partnership with the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation’s infoDev unit, which estimated the database could save $2 trillion in license fees. Der Spiegel covered the project under the headline “Patent Lies: Who Says Saving the Planet Has to Cost a Fortune?” You can read David’s own explanation of the project here and a one-page summary here. David is also the author of the international legal framework for the Heritable Knowledge Trust and Heritable Innovation Trust programs.

There’s nothing evil about it, it’s ethical. It’s for the common wealth.

A commonwealth is a political community founded for the common good, a phrase that also shows up in arguments for vaccine passports and, historically, in Adolf Hitler’s February 1920 line: “The common good before the individual good.” I raise that not to draw an equivalence, but to show how load-bearing “common good” language has been used across very different regimes.

More Credentials, More Institutions

He has pioneered global programs to bring corporate and stock market transparency to multi-national extractive industries… Dr. Martin is a Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business Administration.

The Batten Institute was founded with a $60 million gift from Frank Batten, chairman of Landmark Communications, a private media company based in Norfolk, Virginia.

He served as Chair of Economic Innovation for the UN-affiliated Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization and has served as an advisor to numerous Central Banks, global economic forums, the World Bank and International Finance Corporation, and national governments.

The Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization was an official, now defunct, UN-affiliated NGO. Its founding letter commits it to advancing the UN Global Compact’s ten principles, and an archived version of its website states its intent to help meet the UN Millennium Development Goals, eight targets tied to the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000. The World Health Organization later folded these into the Sustainable Development Goals, 17 goals with 169 targets tied to Agenda 2030, formerly Agenda 21.

Would the UN place David at the head of Economic Innovation for an organization built around these goals if he opposed them?

A spokesperson for global financial and intangible asset accountability and quality reform, Dr. Martin has worked closely with the United States Congress and numerous trade and financial regulatory agencies… He was a Co-Chair of the ADC (Australia Davos Connection) Forum’s Leadership Retreat and Critical Infrastructure and Cybersecurity Councils.

From the ADC Forum’s website: “The ADC Forum provides actionable insights on the critical issues important for shaping our future, working alongside leaders from business, government, academia, and civil society.” ADC was founded by Ninian Stephen, a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. You can review the ADC’s advisory council yourself.

David was also founding Director of Melbourne’s Centre of Applied Innovation, a joint venture between M-CAM and Melbourne Polytechnic. Its 2016 mission statement, written by David, reads in part:

In other words, what we seek to foster is not a working class to serve the productive and consumptive needs of rent-based consumer industrialism but rather a fully interactive participant in the social enterprise that can create, assimilate, and critique dynamic ecosystems and contribute in an accretive fashion to society… Moving from the Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill paradigms of rentier, industrialist and laborer to a model of intelligent integrated participant, our efforts will be experiential, participatory, and relevant.

David states his own objective plainly here: moving away from free-market principles toward something he calls an “intelligent integrated participant.” The language echoes the kind found in The Great Reset.

He also served as Chairman and CEO of eSurface and founding CEO of Mosaic Technologies, and was a founding member of Japan’s Institute for Interface Science and Technology. In 2002, he founded the Charlottesville Venture Group in Virginia, a group active since at least 1998, in a city that is also home to the National Ground Intelligence Center. Its keynote speaker roster has included pharmaceutical executives like Krishna Kodukula.

His bio also lists board seats at the Research Institute for Small and Emerging Business, the Academy for Augmenting Grassroots Technological Innovations in India, the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Charlottesville Industrial Development Agency, Humanitad in the UK, and Global Urban Development. A search for “Academy for Augmenting Grassroots Technological Innovations” or “Charlottesville Industrial Development Agency” turns up nothing beyond David’s own bio. If these organizations exist independently, they don’t appear to have a public web presence.

Humanitad’s mission statement closes with the phrase “one world, one humanity.” Its initiatives page lists its programs and people.

The Singapore Connection

As international policy contributor, economist and futurist, Dr. Martin’s work at The Arlington Institute (U.S.) included accurately forecasting the global financial crisis of 2008 and working with the launch of Singapore’s Risk Assessment Horizon Scanning initiative.

From The Arlington Institute’s website: John Petersen founded the Institute in 1989 to broaden the definition of “national security” beyond military threats. Petersen’s background runs through the National War College, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council staff. He was a decorated Navy veteran, ran for Secretary of the Navy twice, and later became a contributor to KurzweilAI.net. You can learn more about him here.

The Arlington Institute helped launch Singapore’s Risk Assessment Horizon Scanning program, documented in Rising Robotics and the Third Industrial Revolution, a joint project between Singapore’s Risk Assessment Horizon Scanning Programme Office and the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Foresight Initiative. Parag Khanna’s book Technocracy in America: Rise of the Info-State describes Singapore as the “world’s best run company,” with its model centered on the Centre for Strategic Futures.

Parag Khanna was a Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a senior geopolitical adviser to U.S. Special Operations Command. He now runs FutureMap and previously ran Hybrid Reality. Singapore’s CSF feeds into the World Economic Forum’s Risk Response Network and the Davos-based World Risk Forum, which also runs a London event focused partly on mining, a detail that connects back to Mongolia.

Singapore’s CSF works alongside the Horizon Scanning Centre, part of the Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning (RAHS) program that David helped launch, which convenes an annual symposium of foresight practitioners. On the program, David said:

The implication of RAHS and its foresight into economic turning points in the horizon is tremendous. Many financial institutions already conduct their own risk assessment. However, with a platform to share information, especially across markets, this will be a more robust method of economic risk assessment and horizon scanning.

David helped launch RAHS while at the Arlington Institute, which partnered with Singapore’s government in 2001 to build a tool called DIANE (Digital Analysis Environment), described as the beginning of “anticipatory analysis,” the discipline that led to RAHS. The Arlington Institute’s board has included Betty Sue Flowers, Owen Wormser, and James Woolsey Jr., a former CIA Director. The Institute describes its own mission as “playing a significant role in facilitating a global transition to a new world that operates in a fundamentally different way from the past.” That’s the Institute’s own language, not mine.

Tse Hao Guang, a strategist at Singapore’s CSF, wrote in Bio-surveillance in the Era of COVID-19:

Canadian think-tank Policy Horizons has recently articulated the potential for a ‘biodigital convergence,’ where biological and digital systems interpenetrate to change the way we live, work, and even define what is natural or human. The rise of bio-surveillance, accelerated by COVID-19, is undoubtedly one undercurrent of this driving force.

Policy Horizons Canada describes its mandate as helping the Canadian government “develop future-oriented policy and programs that are more robust and resilient in the face of disruptive change on the horizon.” David helped launch the initiatives feeding into this framework. That information comes from his own website, not from speculation.

In 2017, Parag Khanna wrote Technocracy in America: Rise of the Info-State, arguing that “it’s time to admit that America needs less of its own version of democracy… Democracy alone just isn’t good enough anymore,” and that the optimal state form for the information age should be called the “Info-State”. Khanna also wrote that “Info-states such as Switzerland and Singapore are also the places where we can witness the best efforts at direct technocracy” and that “Technocracy becomes a form of salvation after society realizes that democracy doesn’t guarantee national success.”

Worth noting directly: the United States was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Any argument that leans on “saving democracy” to justify replacing the American system with something else starts from a flawed premise about what that system actually is.

In a 2010 Big Think article, Khanna described Singapore’s ambition to become a “living laboratory” for biomedicine, clean-tech, and digital media, built around its Biopolis research hub and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), which he wrote was investing in “data mining, cryptography, and human-robot communication.”

Sebastian Maurer-Stroh, a researcher at A*STAR’s Bioinformatics Institute, reported the first cases outside China said to “test positive for SARS-CoV-2.” He was also involved in tracing the Zika virus genome during the 2016 Zika story.

UK-based QuantuMDx, another ASTAR-linked project, developed a DNA sequencing nanowire biosensor for rapid genomic testing and partnered with Scienion to bring it to market. McKinsey & Company is a Tier 1 Member of ASTAR’s Advanced Remanufacturing and Technology Centre and launched a global network of Digital Capability Centres in 2017 with a hub in Singapore. In December 2020, McKinsey published “How COVID-19 is redefining the next-normal operating model,” which states, in its own words:

With everything disrupted, going back to the same old thing is a losing strategy. The strongest companies are reinventing themselves by embracing pandemic-driven change… As historian Yuval Noah Harari puts it: ‘That is the nature of emergencies. They fast-forward historical processes.’

I read that as an acknowledgment, in the industry’s own language, that the pandemic accelerated a restructuring these institutions had already been planning.

David’s connection to this network is not hidden. He helped launch these initiatives, and that’s documented on his own website, not inferred. In an interview with Reiner Fuellmich, notice how quickly David moves past the question of whether the virus exists at all, calling it “reportedly isolated” before pivoting to patents.

Patents as Evidence

David has pushed for patent reform since at least 2012, and one article calls him a “patent reform activist.” That context matters, because patents are the centerpiece of his Moderna bioweapon claim, and I think that emphasis serves his long-standing interest in patent reform more than it serves the truth about the virus.

Anyone can file a patent application for $100, whether or not the invention behind it is real or works. A patent application is not proof that its contents are true. David’s argument leans entirely on the existence of patent filings, not on any physical or scientific evidence that a virus was isolated, characterized, or shown to cause illness.

In one clip, David states:

If on March 28, 2019 … the following sentence was written in a patent application: ‘because of a concern for re-emergence or a deliberate release of SARS Coronavirus was initiated’ – that sentence was written into a patent application on March 28, 2019.

That sentence being written into a filing tells us only that someone wrote it. It doesn’t establish that a virus exists, that it was released, or that Moderna acted on real biological evidence. David goes on:

This was a patent application, that had first been submitted in 2015…and the US Patent Office had rejected it … not once or twice … over and over and over again … but on March 28, 2019, suddenly a SARS BETA CORONAVIRUS specific vaccine … specifically the S1 Spike 1 protein, the thing that was allegedly … modified in December 2019 in a bat cave in China – that was specifically referenced in March 2019.

I’d ask for the original isolation paper this claim depends on, the negative control experiments that would rule out toxicity as the actual cause of illness, and any evidence beyond patent language that the virus exists in the physical world. Without that, a patent filing proves what a patent filing always proves: someone wrote words down and paid the fee.

Reiner Fuellmich doesn’t press David on any of this in their interview. Fuellmich has since formed a new political party in Germany, “Die Basis,” and I haven’t found a case number for the lawsuits he has publicized. Dolores Cahill, who built her career in vaccine development before running for office in Ireland, follows a similar pattern. I’d apply the same scrutiny to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and any other figure who builds a political career on opposition to the official pandemic story without ever asking the more basic question: has anyone actually isolated and characterized this virus according to the scientific method?

David made a similar patent-based argument in an interview with Brian Rose, regarding a Moderna patent filed on March 28, 2019, for a Beta SARS Coronavirus vaccine. The patent is real. What it proves is disputed. David doesn’t address the difference between “someone filed a patent describing a scenario” and “that scenario is confirmed to have happened.”

The Bigger Argument: Where Is the Virus?

The CDC has acknowledged it has no gold standard for viral isolation, and FOIA requests across multiple countries have returned no record of properly isolated and purified SARS-CoV-2. The questions that matter, in my view, are these: which paper documents proper isolation with a negative control, and which paper rules out toxicity as the cause of the reported illness? Everything else, including the patent talk, is a distraction from those two questions.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also interviewed Dr. Martin in November 2020, where David described his business: “our business is, we actually have to monitor every patent that issues anywhere on earth.” He holds multiple patents himself and has built deep-tech modeling systems around that patent data, which gives him and his company outsized visibility into a market few people track closely.

His bio also lists advisory work in India, Bermuda, Brazil, China, Denmark, the EU, the UK, South Africa, Iran, Mongolia, Egypt, Ecuador, Singapore, Germany, Slovenia, Vietnam, and the UAE, plus a role as constitutional and economic advisor to the Autonomy Committee of East New Britain and New Ireland in Papua New Guinea. I can’t find an independent web presence for that committee. His work has also been the subject of two documentaries, and he has spoken at the UN General Assembly and appeared on Bloomberg and HBO. In 2015, he was also reportedly in Antarctica.

The “Character Assassination” Video

After people began raising questions about his connections, David posted a video accusing critics of “assassinating his character.” Everything in this document comes from his own website and his own recorded statements. Presenting someone’s own words back to them isn’t character assassination.

In that video, David openly discusses working with weapons labs and world governments, and openly references being called “controlled opposition” without denying the label. He describes being hired to work on blocking high-frequency radiation for the Japanese government, and on “Pulse Electromagnetic Therapy,” a technology he says was developed after the US dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He mentions that his client’s CEO, and that CEO’s father, both received Japan’s Imperial Medal, and that he was an advisor to Japan’s Ministry of Science and Technology. He also says he was on the medical school faculty at the University of Virginia, made submissions to the FDA, and worked on CDRH panels, adding medicine to a resume that already spans finance, patents, law, writing, consulting, and academia.

Elsewhere in the video, he references his logo having “no similarity” to Masonic symbols, and separately has acknowledged that both his grandfather and great-grandfather were Freemasons. I raise the Masonic detail not as proof of anything on its own, but because it’s part of the biography he has put in the public record himself, alongside his home base near Langley, Virginia, and his education at the University of Virginia.

The core point of the video, in my read, is that David never directly denies the substance of the connections being raised. He responds with mockery and theatrics instead of addressing the specifics, which is worth noticing on its own.

He has also produced multiple videos arguing that mRNA vaccines don’t meet the legal definition of a vaccine, without extending the same scrutiny to vaccines generally. Meanwhile, M-CAM’s own index page shows how well David’s indexes have performed since 2020, a detail worth sitting with given how much of his platform is built on distrust of the pandemic response.

Where This Leaves Us

Put together: a UN-affiliated advisory role tied to the Millennium and Sustainable Development Goals, a co-chair seat on a cybersecurity council, a founding role in Singapore’s horizon-scanning and bio-surveillance infrastructure, a business built on monitoring and monetizing the entire global patent system, and an index fund that profits when the same pharmaceutical companies at the center of the pandemic response do well. None of that is speculation. It comes from David’s own bio, his own company’s website, and the public records of the institutions he has worked with.

Given that record, I find it hard to place David in the role of an independent whistleblower on the pandemic response. That’s my opinion, and I’ve laid out the evidence behind it. You’re free to disagree, and I’d encourage you to check the sources yourself rather than take my word, or David’s, for any of it.

Additional sources are available here.

---

Addendum: The Synthetic Chimeric Computer Simulation Vaccine Bioweapon Claim

This addendum compares what David said in Plandemic II with what he said in later interviews with Reiner Fuellmich and with Stew Peters, to show how the story changed over time. My argument here doesn’t rely on outside theories, just on comparing David’s own statements across three separate interviews.

In Plandemic II, David says patents around coronavirus first appeared in 1999, and references a “coronavirus outbreak in Asia” in 2003, a characterization I believe is inaccurate; there was a SARS outbreak, but not the framing David uses. He states:

The NIAID built an infectious replication coronavirus that specifically targeted for human lung epithelia—in other words, we made SARS—and patented it in 2002 before there was any outbreak in Asia. US Patent 7279327.

That patent number, when you look it up, describes a recombinant pig coronavirus, not the human SARS virus David is discussing. That’s a meaningful discrepancy in his central piece of evidence. He also says, later at roughly 7:45 in the film:

They saw that a virus they knew could be easily manipulated, was something that was very valuable and in 2003 they sought to patent it…and they made sure that they controlled the proprietary rights to the disease, to the virus, and to its detection and all of the measurement of it.

I’d ask how a virus can be “easily manipulated” if, as David argues elsewhere, it was never properly isolated in the first place. He continues:

On April 25, 2003, the US Center for Disease Control filed a patent … on the coronavirus transmitted to humans…nature is prohibited from being patented. Either SARS Coronavirus was manufactured, therefore making a patent on it legal, or it was natural – therefore making a patent on it illegal.

That framing presents only two options, manufactured or natural, when there’s a third possibility worth taking seriously: that the patent language describes a concept that was never demonstrated in a lab according to accepted scientific method. A patent application, on its own, is not scientific proof of anything; there are also patents on file for gravity distortion devices and time machines, and nobody treats those filings as evidence the devices work. The same logical standard should apply here. Applying Occam’s Razor, I’d want to see the original isolation paper with a documented negative control before accepting any claim built on that virus’s existence, let alone claims about it being modified.

David also says:

In the spring of 2007, the CDC filed a petition with the patent office to keep their application confidential and private … they actually filed patents on not only the virus but they also filed patents on its detection and a kit to measure it. Because of that CDC patent, they had the ability to control who was authorized and who was not authorized to make independent inquiries into coronavirus.

That’s a fair point worth investigating on its own, independent of whether the underlying virus claims hold up. Restricting independent verification of a claimed pathogen is a legitimate concern regardless of what conclusion you reach about the virus itself.

The Story Changes

By his interview with Fuellmich, roughly sixteen months after Plandemic II, David revises his own account. He now says the “novel coronavirus of 2020” is actually 22 years old, based on the 1999 patent filings, which walks back the film’s original “lab-leak, modified pathogen” framing. He states:

There wasn’t a lab-leak, this was an intentional bio-weaponization of spike proteins to inject into people to get them addicted to a pan-coronavirus vaccine. This has nothing to do with a pathogen that was released and every study that’s ever been launched to try and verify a lab leak is a red herring.

This directly contradicts the theory Plandemic II built its entire narrative around, the one David himself helped popularize in that film. In his interview with Stew Peters, David goes further:

A computer simulated synthetic chimeric computer generated code, uploaded by the Chinese in January [2020] – was given to Moderna so that your cells would produce the S1 Spike Protein Synthesis – not the actual virus…this was a computer code uploaded by the Chinese into U.S. manufacturing to inject a pathogen stimulant into the American population.

He adds that he sent this information to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of HHS in April 2020, more than a year before going public with it. That timeline raises a fair question: if David believed in April 2020 that a bioweapon-grade vaccine was being manufactured and administered to the public, why wait sixteen months, through the Plandemic II release and multiple other interviews, to say so publicly?

I’d also note that this new claim rests on the same category of evidence as the old one: patent language, not laboratory verification. If the patent-based bioweapon claim in Plandemic II turned out, by David’s own admission, to be a “red herring,” that raises the question of why his newest patent-based claim should be treated any differently.

David also acknowledges, in the Fuellmich interview, that no Delta variant has been shown to be genomically distinct from anything else on record:

There is no evidence that the Delta variant is somehow distinct from anything else on GISAID… we don’t have any point of reference to actually know whether or not the thing we are looking at is in fact distinct from either clinical or even genomic sense… There is no novel anything.

I’d extend that same logic to the original SARS-CoV-2 sequence and ask for the same standard of proof: a properly isolated, purified sample compared against a documented negative control. Without that baseline, claims about spike proteins “binding to receptors” or being “weaponized” don’t have anywhere to stand.

The Bayh-Dole Angle

David has argued that the Bayh-Dole Act, which lets universities and small businesses retain title to inventions developed with federal funding (see 35 U.S. Code § 200 and § 202), gives the government a “march-in right” to license patents developed with public funds. That provision exists, but no federal agency has ever exercised it in the history of the Act. David has pushed for patent reform going back to at least 2013, when he wrote to Congressman Bob Goodlatte in support of the Innovation Act, recommending that his own company’s software become “a routine part of intangible asset transactions in the secondary markets.” Given that his business depends on tracking and monetizing patent data globally, his advocacy for patent reform is worth reading with that financial interest in mind, alongside his separate work on “Climate Investing” and the broader push, documented by Parag Khanna, to extend Asia’s technocratic model globally.

Where the Two Stories Leave Us

To summarize the contradiction plainly: Plandemic II told audiences a modified pathogen may have been deliberately or accidentally released from a lab. A year later, David called that same story a “red herring” and replaced it with a claim about a synthetic computer code uploaded into vaccine manufacturing, again based on patent language rather than laboratory evidence. Both versions rest on the same unproven premise, that SARS-CoV-2 was properly isolated and characterized in the first place, a premise I don’t think the available evidence supports.

I’d also point out something David leaves out of his CDC criticism. In Plandemic II, he says: “I don’t have to remind many Americans that the CDC was the one that said you should use DDT in your homes.” That’s true, but it invites a follow-up question he doesn’t raise: what if the illness historically attributed to certain viral outbreaks, including polio, was caused or worsened by DDT and other pesticide exposure rather than a virus alone? That’s a real and researched line of inquiry, documented across multiple sources, and it’s worth investigating independent of what conclusion you reach about David Martin specifically.

Closing Thoughts

This document isn’t only about David Martin. The larger point is about how “controlled opposition” figures can operate: by mixing real, verifiable facts (patent filings, institutional ties, business interests) with unverified or contradictory claims, in a way that makes the whole package hard to fact-check in real time. I’d encourage the same scrutiny applied here to any public figure positioning themselves as the lone truth-teller on a major institutional story, especially when their business model benefits from the outcome they’re warning about.

I don’t think most of the people building platforms around pandemic skepticism are acting in good faith, and I think it’s worth asking, of any of them: who funds them, who do they answer to, and what do they gain if their story is believed? Those are fair questions to ask of David Martin, and they’re fair questions to ask of his critics too, myself included.

Telegram | Kevin McKernan debunks David Martin’s patent claims, 7/26/21

---

Appendix: Complete Source List

The prose above folds in most of the original document’s links inline. The essay condenses a lot of repetitive rhetorical passages from the source PDF, and several clusters of source links landed in those trimmed passages rather than in the final prose. Every one of those links is preserved below, organized by the page of the original PDF where it appeared, so no source from the original document is lost.

HIV/AIDS background (Page 2): 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

Global Innovation Commons (Page 11): infoDev background

Common good / propaganda language (Page 13): Global common good

Landmark Media / UN goals background (Page 14): Privately held · Newspaper · Publishing · Electronic publishing · Software · IREO archive · Millennium Development Goals · International development · Goal

UN/SDG background (Page 15): UN Millennium Declaration · WHO MDG fact sheet · WHO SDGs · Sustainable Development Goals · Agenda 21 outcome document

Charlottesville Venture Group history (Page 18): 1998 archive · Speech archive · FastTrac TechVenture · 11th Annual Business Forum

Krishna Kodukula (Page 19): LinkedIn

Technocracy in America / Mongolia mining (Page 22): Ebook edition · NPR: Mongolia mining · Mongolia mining opportunities

Arlington Institute / DIANE / RAHS background (Page 24): DIANE project page · John L. Petersen, Sourcewatch · “The Road to 2012” (USCG, 1993) · Ray Kurzweil · TAI scenario development, archived · Wild card (foresight) · TAI nanotechnology paper, archived · Betty Sue Flowers · Owen Wormser, Sourcewatch

Policy Horizons Canada (Page 25): Homepage

Cyber Polygon / cyber insurance background (Page 26): Cyberpolygon (via Facebook redirect) · GovTech: cyber insurance costs · Cyber insurance research paper · APRIA 2017 paper · Cyber insurance · Hegelian dialectic

Cryptography / internet passports (Page 28): Cryptography · Secure communication · Adversary (cryptography) · Cryptography, cite note · Communications protocol · Internet passports · Internet sovereignty · WEF video (via Facebook redirect) · WEF YouTube (via Facebook redirect)

Zika comparison (Page 29): Cyberattack simulation, July 2021 · EcoWatch: Zika/larvicide claim · Zika commentary · Video · Zika virus isolation/serology paper · Zika fraud commentary

Cyberattack simulation video (Page 30): Video

David Martin channels/profiles (Page 32): YouTube channel · About page · Speaker profile

Patent system commentary (Page 34): IP Commission report

Virus isolation question (Page 35): Video

Dolores Cahill videos (Page 37): Video 1 · Video 2 · Irish Times post

Batten Institute (Page 40): Darden Batten Institute page

Character-assassination video commentary (Page 45): Condescension, Urban Dictionary · Del Bigtree interview

mRNA vaccine videos (Page 46): Video

SARS-COV isolation claims (Page 51): Faulty science paper · Commentary

Fuellmich interview clips (Page 54): Clip 1 · Clip 2 · WEF patent law paper

Additional interview material (Pages 55-58): Cell.com paper · Rumble interview · YouTube clip · Odysee interview

Spike protein / isolation claims (Pages 60-61): What is a spike protein · Video · SARS book PDF · FDA document · Video · Commentary · Commentary · Global Research article · Show Us The Virus · FOI request results · Video · Isolation vs. purification · Video · Coronavirus Panic PDF

Shortened links (Page 62): Link 1 · Link 2

Bayh-Dole Act background (Page 63): JD Supra explainer · Bayh-Dole Act, Wikipedia · Google search: repeal arguments · Research Enterprise: repeal or reform · ITIF event · Politico: drug pricing · Congressional Research Service report · AUTM: Bayh-Dole Act

Innovation Act / Asia patent context (Page 64): Imgur document · IPWatchdog: Innovation Act criticism · The Future is Asian PDF · Forbes: AI in Asia · WIPO Magazine · The Peak Magazine: Parag Khanna interview

India / European patent context (Page 65): Hoover Institution: India · FFII: European patent system

Climate investing (Page 66): Notre Dame Climate Investing speaker page

Freemasonry / France commentary (Page 67): Winter Oak: France commentary · Google Doc

Polio, DDT, and germ theory sources (Page 68): This cluster of the original document argues that pesticide exposure, not viral infection, explains historical polio cases, and questions germ theory generally. Sources: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 (DNA)

Closing link (Page 70): Additional link

Margin of the Law publishes constitutional analysis, civic research, and legal education for people who want to understand the system they actually live in. Read the Full Constitutional Analysis Library at marginofthelaw.com.

© 2026 – MK3 Law Group
For republication or citation, please credit this article with link attribution to marginofthelaw.com.